A dispute always has at least two sides, otherwise it wouldn't be defined as a dispute.  So what happens when both sides accuse each other of policies that lead one closer to an anarchist type of government?  First we have to define anarchy.  Anarchy: political disorder, violence, lawlessness, or the complete absence of government ...or disorder in any sphere of activity (how about the heavenly sphere?).


Ask yourself, who celebrated the political disorder, violence, and lawlessness in Egypt and Libya?  


Who celebrated it in the name of liberation ...when a reporter was subjected to a horrific mob rape?  Could that woman go home and celebrate liberation, or was that lawlessness?  


Can we celebrate defecation, an Occupy movement finding liberty to have a bowel movement ...an expression of resentment towards authority?  So, who still is promoting violence?   


Who would prefer not to work with Congress, while also showing no respect for the Supreme Court?  I would find it difficult to work with either one.   But I would want to work with them, because not wanting to work within the balances of power within our government is next to kin of a monarchy ...and not a respectful one.  Would we rather find one that empowers itself with communist affiliations?


Speaking of the Supreme Court ...how do we view supreme?  


I believe only God is supreme.  


I got rather agitated with the ideology of White Supremists, as I witnessed it in prison (I was working there, not a cellmate).  One prisoner was a professed Christian, and politely agreed to talk with me.  He was more than eager to tell me all the details of his beliefs, and was also about to give me a list of books to read ...when I told him he would be most helpful to answer just a few of my questions.  


I asked, "How does a person get to Heaven?"  


He quickly answered, "Through their belief in Jesus."   


I asked my second question, "And that's all it takes?"   


He answered directly, "Yes."   


Prepared for this final statement, I said, "According to what you just said, I know many black believers who will go to Heaven.  Yet, if I believe I am supreme because I am white ...then how does it work if I go somewhere else, claiming I had supreme status because of my skin color, not through the shed blood of Jesus.   If I'm a white man in Hell, and people of all colors are praising God in Heaven ...I would not feel so supremely special."


Back to the subject of anarchy, I was first challenged on the idea of anarchy when I was working in a facility with teenagers.   Trying desperately to find their way in life, a couple of the young boys were promoting anarchy, attempting to stage a unit rebellion.   


I feel I can best get their attention by asking them, "What exactly is anarchy?"   


They both smile, "No rules, and everybody does what they want!"  


I ask, "What happens if what I want differs from what you want?"   


Confused by my question, the bigger boy replies, "Well, you do what you want ...and I do what I want."   


I clarify, "But what if what I want interferes with what you want?"      


The bigger boy proudly states, "I still do what I want."    


I answer confidently, "Not if I'm bigger than you ...now go sit down!"  


There's not a place on earth that does not have customs and rules.   There are places with political disorder, violence, and lawlessness ...but they are not completely void of government.  I am glad that we have a nation where we can have dialogue, instead of the ruling party stating that we should do this or that because they are bigger than us.   But sometimes it is necessary to exercise the 'bigger than you' concept.   It is also helpful to realize that it is bigger than all of us.   It is only healthy to rule when we realize God is supreme, and we do best to seek Him for guidance and counsel.   When this fails to happen ...I would not like to imagine what else could happen.